Cockroach Janta Party and Supreme Court 
Litigation News

Law Student moves Supreme Court alleging UP govt misled court, no action taken against Executive Magistrate who issued notice over CJP protest

Law Student Akshat Tripathi said only the Sub-Inspector who forwarded the case was suspended, not the ACP (Executive Magistrate) who issued the notice, contrary to what the State of UP conveyed to the Court

Debayan Roy

Law student Akshat Tripathi has moved the Supreme Court alleging that the Uttar Pradesh government misled the court on the action taken over the Rs 5 lakh bond notice issued to him in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest.

His writ petition was mentioned on September 10 before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, which is hearing petitions arising out of the July protests at Jantar Mantar and other parts of the country.

On that day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on instructions from the State of UP, told the Court that the notice was issued not by the District Magistrate but by the Executive Magistrate, and that the official responsible had been suspended.

"It was not the District Magistrate. It was some other official who has been suspended," Mehta had said, adding, "Let's not sensationalise it."

In the fresh application, Tripathi has relied on an Indian Express report which states that UP DGP Headquarters later clarified that only Sub-Inspector Shiva Pandey, whose report formed the basis of the notice, was suspended. The ACP (Executive Magistrate) who actually issued the notice was not.

"It is pertinent to mention that the State of Uttar Pradesh misled this Hon'ble Court by placing a wrong statement regarding the action taken by the State authorities and that too by using the good office of the learned Solicitor General of India," the application states.

The clarification, Tripathi said, "places a material aspect of the matter in a different light" and may help the Court appreciate the circumstances in which the notice came to be issued.

He has clarified that the report is being filed "only for the limited purpose" of placing the subsequent development before the Court, and has sought liberty to place on record the corresponding official material, if necessary.

The notice dated September 4 was issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the Executive Magistrate-Third, Greater Noida. It called upon Tripathi to show cause why he should not be bound down under Sections 126 and 135 BNSS with a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh and two sureties of like amount, for allegedly instigating fellow students to join a proposed CJP dharna.

The notice came three days after the Supreme Court's September 1 order quashing cases against students who took part in the CJP-led protests against exam paper leaks.

When the issue was flagged on September 9, the CJI had asked, "How did the magistrate dare to issue a notice when we have already annulled" the proceedings.

The application has been filed through Advocate Subhash Chandran KR.

The matter is listed for hearing tomorrow.

Kerala High Court quashes case against man who mistakenly held national flag upside down

Before the jargon: First principles as a tool of litigation strategy

SIR did not affect electoral results; ECI opposes TMC plea for fresh polls in 31 West Bengal seats

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advises NDR Smart Spaces on ₹225 crore investment by IFC

Judiciary committed to protecting students' right to protest: CJI Surya Kant at CNLU Patna open house

SCROLL FOR NEXT